[americandream]

Obama's own deficit is the new record deficit....by several times over.

Is it really an Obama deficit or a redneck deficit ...?

Its really an Obama deficit (unless you think Obama is a redneck?). Its the deficit Obama's budget director proposes to create, and Obama supports.

Obama created his huge deficit by spending so much money in his porkulus bill, his budget supplement bill, his housing bailout bill, and the other bills Obama has pushed. The porkulus alone is almost a trillion dollars of deficit. And Obama isn't done spending yet....expect him send another bill to Congress to get authorisation to spend considerably more money on AIG bonuses and bank bailouts then he already has so the Obama deficit will be even worse then he is projecting in the graph above.

Let me try and explain the parlous state of Us finances to you simply, and by the use of an analogy.

Imagine that you discovered that whilst you were in hospital in a deep coma after an unfortunate road accident, that your wife had been out whooping it up on the credit cards and that you were unfortunately reduced to borrowing from your bank in order to service that debt sustainably so as to avoid losing the family home and the kids being thrown out on the streets, just who is to blame for your predicament. YOU?

Add to the scenario the picture of your wife haranguing you for taking out the loan to service her debt and the equally spendthrift neighbour shouting over the fence in agreement with her and what we have are the likes of all this hoohaa over Obama. What choices does he and his ilk have?

1 Tax cuts, more deregulation and let the "fittest" survive? There was never any Darwinian free market as we see here with this fiasco so whose to say that any of these free market con artists will ever play fair and square? or;

2 Interventionism by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Given the above what are the wealthy to do other than intervene, regulate and hope that they can preserve their privilege whilst undoing the bankruptcy the free market conmen have lumbered them with.

This not about the average American. This is about that class of passive wealth that senses that they were robbed by interlopers who promised them untold gain in a market free of oversight but instead ripped them off when handed the keys.

As a Marxist, neither of these matter a whit to me but I find it utterly laughable is that you lay the blame for America's accumulated indebtedness at the feet of this man. You Sir are why you are in deep doggy doo over there and will continue to be until you extricate your head out of all that complex propaganda and use your common sense.

The road to recovery lies in first understanding why you are where you are. When chickens like you squak though, all you do is befuddle and mislead and that is precisely the environment these free market thieves relish. Confusion!

[Plantagenet]

Obama's own deficit is the new record deficit....by several times over.

Is it really an Obama deficit or a redneck deficit ...?

Its really an Obama deficit (unless you think Obama is a redneck?). Its the deficit Obama's budget director proposes to create, and Obama supports.

Obama created his huge deficit by spending so much money in his porkulus bill, his budget supplement bill, his housing bailout bill, and the other bills Obama has pushed. The porkulus alone is almost a trillion dollars of deficit. And Obama isn't done spending yet....expect him send another bill to Congress to get authorisation to spend considerably more money on AIG bonuses and bank bailouts then he already has so the Obama deficit will be even worse then he is projecting in the graph above.

As a Marxist... I find it utterly laughable is that you lay the blame for America's accumulated indebtedness at the feet of this man.

And I find it humorous that you don't understand what you read. Nowhere have I blamed Obama for America's accumulated indebtedness, as you wrongly claim. I do blame Obama for the huge amount of debt he is creating this year with his crazy budget this year, and I blame Obama for the enormous debts he proposes to create in the future with his budget plan.

Obama himself (well....his budget man Peter Orzag) created the plot above showing how much debt Obama is creating this year and plans to create in the future. LOOK AT THE CHART---Obama will create about as much debt this year as Bush did in his whole 8 years. I think its crazy for Obama to intentionally explode the deficit by running huge budget deficits year after year----this kind of debt doesn't help the economy....Obama is risking making the US economy much worse by opening the door to massive inflation.



PS: I sometimes envy Marxists, Christians, Bhuddists, Muhammadans, etc. It must be nice to have faith in a higher power. I hope your faith in Marx gives you comfort in these difficult times.

[americandream]

Plantaganet

I remind you again...what choice do the passive wealthy have other than, via Obama, to reign in the excesses of the free market ideologues in whom they entrusted their wealth creation (the CEO's, hedge fund managers etc.)

If I have faith as a Marxist in anything, it's my fath in my belief that give a conman half a chance, and he will clean out your underwear drawer. Hence, whilst I despise the machinations of the idle rich, I understand their eagerness to, via Obama, pay off the debts that free market man has run up or risk losing it all. If any group is to blame for the pork thats being cured at the moment, it's this class.

It's that simple. It's based on facts and there is no god in my equation. Just simple reason.

[Plantagenet]

If I have faith as a Marxist in anything, it's my fath in my belief that give a conman half a chance, and he will clean out your underwear drawer. Hence, whilst I despise the machinations of the idle rich, I understand their eagerness to, via Obama, pay off the debts that free market man has run up .....

Your post is reasonable and logical until that final sentence. Obama isn't paying off any debts. Obama is creating huge, new debts at rate many times faster then any prior administration has ever done. I don't see why you have such a hard time grasping that simple fact when even Peter Orzag, Obama's budget director, freely admits it.

[TWilliam]

As the saying goes, "The Republicans run the tab, the Democrats write the check."

[americandream]

As the saying goes, "The Republicans run the tab, the Democrats write the check."

Succinct and to the point. I couldn't have put it better.

[Plantagenet]

As the saying goes, "The Republicans run the tab, the Democrats write the check."

Succinct and to the point. I couldn't have put it better.

A pithy but inaccurate sentiment. It is Obama and the democrats who are in power and running the tab now, and the democrats are the ones running the tab on the biggest deficits in history.

[Blacksmith]

I don't think you americans can see much beyond your noses, Republicans versus Democrates. You all are going to pay, inflation does that. The rich will put their money into foreign currencies or durable good and the rest, that is people who have any money, will pay the bills. It does not matter weither you run the tab or write the cheque you all are going to pay, either through dropping prices or the drop in the value of the dollar.

[Tyler_JC]

The US Federal Government has traditionally taken about 18.5% of GDP in tax revenue in the post war era and spent about 19-20% of GDP leaving a deficit of a point or two of GDP.

Those days are over.

Obama's Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy ... ables2.pdf

I urge everyone to read through the budget and decide for themselves if his assumptions are valid or even honest.

Just for this fiscal year:

US GDP is 14.2 Trillion. Federal outlays (spending) in Obama's first budget year are 3.9 Trillion dollars or 27.7% of GDP. This is a huge increase from the historical norm and the highest level since WW2.

Tax revenues for this year are expected to be only 15.4% of GDP, 16.2% next year, and 17.5% the year after that.

Needless to say, even under Obama's rather optimistic assumptions, we are going to be looking at huge deficits for years.

The 2009-2011 cumulative deficit (3 years) is a staggering 3.8 trillion which is roughly the entire budget this year. In effect, we are only going to pay for 2/3 of Obama's spending over the next 3 years. The rest will be borrowed.

Here's another scary fact. For the entire budget period (2010-2019), the elimination of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are expected to bring in a mere $636 billion. If you want to include the reduced debt service on not having to pay for the debt brought on by keeping the tax cuts (a fishy accounting ploy) we are still only looking at a total deficit reduction of $947 Billion.

That's right. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the upper 2% and you bring in $95 billion a year. Big freaking deal. That's less than what we're spending on our "overseas contingency operations".

I'm not just talking about moving the marginal rate from 35% to 39.6%. We're also including a hike in the capital gains and dividend tax rate from 15% to 20% and a big cut in the charitable giving tax deduction. Congress already killed that last one.

You could eliminate ALL of the Bush tax cuts (even those on the working class) and still have massive deficits. The tea party debate is NOT about the Bush tax cuts. It's about the future tax rates that will be necessary to fund an Obama-sized government.

[deMolay]

The monthly rate of unemployed slowed a bit but the long term rate of unemployment increased. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060503750.html

[nobodypanic]

eventually, the numbers will be revised upward, like they have been for the past oh so many months.

in fact, i wouldn't be surprised if they simply start outright lying about the stats at some point.

[Novus]

David Rosenberg

We have to put the data into perspective. Before the Lehman collapse, when equities were in a moderate bear market and bonds in a moderate bull market, the worst nonfarm payroll result we saw was -175,000. We don’t seem to recall too many pundits rejoicing over employment declines at that time, which were basically half of what was just posted in May. Moreover, the worst nonfarm payroll number in the 2001 recession — right after 9-11 — was -325,000; and before that, at the depths of the 1990-91 recession, the worst report showed a -306,000 print. So basically, what we saw today was a number consistent with a deep recession — just not quite as deep as the near-6% at an annual rate contraction we saw in the first quarter. It is difficult to rejoice over an employment data that is consistent with real GDP still declining anywhere from a 2% to 4% at an annual rate. Now here we are, close to nine months after the Lehman collapse, and we are still printing employment numbers that are double what they were before pre-Lehman. That is the bigger picture.

Moreover, the internals of today’s report, in a word, were awful. Not only are businesses still cutting jobs but they are also reducing the hours that their employees are working; the private workweek hit a new record low of 33.1 hours (from 33.2 hours in April). So, total labour input was much weaker than the headline payroll suggests and this is vividly illustrated in the aggregate-hours worked index, which fell 0.7% MoM and something ‘green shoot’ advocates will not like discuss since this was actually worse than the 0.3% MoM drop in April; this takes the three-month trend to a -8.6% annual rate. Think about that for a moment because what goes into GDP is total hours worked and productivity — so the latter better continue to hang in there or else we are going to be seeing some nasty output data going forward that may well take Mr. Market by surprise. Put another way, if companies had held hours worked constant in May instead of cutting them, to achieve the total labour input they achieved last month would have required — get this — a 927,000 payroll cut. ‘Green shoot’ indeed.

927,000

The idea that things are improving is an outright lie.

[jdmartin]

No doubt things suck and the government's lying to cover it up.

One thing struck me, though. If you look at the picture, you see some girl that's been laid off and living with her mother for support. She's in the grocery store. In her arms are several packages of frozen, processed food, and in her purse is a pack of Newport cigarettes. That kind of stuff is why I think eventually we might see zombie hordes, because people don't *truly* understand how to cut back. She's in the DC area - I bet cigarettes are about $6 a pack up there. If you don't have a job, there's no reason you can't go to the library for free, pick up a cookbook, and figure out how to make meals from scratch for a fraction of the cost of frozen, processed crap. Right there she's got about $10-12 worth of crap that could be saved otherwise. In the process, she'd be healthier, would know how to do something, and could probably involve the rugrats in helping her cook instead of plopping their ass down in front of video games.

[Arsenal]

No doubt things suck and the government's lying to cover it up.

One thing struck me, though. If you look at the picture, you see some girl that's been laid off and living with her mother for support. She's in the grocery store. In her arms are several packages of frozen, processed food, and in her purse is a pack of Newport cigarettes. That kind of stuff is why I think eventually we might see zombie hordes, because people don't *truly* understand how to cut back. She's in the DC area - I bet cigarettes are about $6 a pack up there. If you don't have a job, there's no reason you can't go to the library for free, pick up a cookbook, and figure out how to make meals from scratch for a fraction of the cost of frozen, processed crap. Right there she's got about $10-12 worth of crap that could be saved otherwise. In the process, she'd be healthier, would know how to do something, and could probably involve the rugrats in helping her cook instead of plopping their ass down in front of video games.

Amen!! People don't seem to have the ability/fortitude to cutback anymore.

[beamofthewave]

I believe people can change as I believe she can change if she had the information, I also dont think people understand yet that this is going to be a permanent thing because if she did I bet she would quit smoking and save the cigs she has for future bartering.

[pedalling_faster]

927,000

The idea that things are improving is an outright lie.

i hear all sorts of numbers. 927,000 ... 345,000 ... 500,000+.

maybe we can just toss out the high number and the low number like they do in pro surfing, and then just average the middle 3 numbers.

i detect no green shoots except for the stock markets. of course, at this point the stock market indexes are a psychedelic mathematics cocktail that Hunter Thompson himself would be proud of.

the government gave the banks some money (that was created out of thin air), and they showed a profit.

[Serial_Worrier]

927,000

The idea that things are improving is an outright lie.

i hear all sorts of numbers. 927,000 ... 345,000 ... 500,000+.

maybe we can just toss out the high number and the low number like they do in pro surfing, and then just average the middle 3 numbers.

i detect no green shoots except for the stock markets. of course, at this point the stock market indexes are a psychedelic mathematics cocktail that Hunter Thompson himself would be proud of.

the government gave the banks some money (that was created out of thin air), and they showed a profit.

Just because you don't understand high finance doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't effective at fueling investments. Your ignorance is no excuse.

[FairMaiden]

No doubt things suck and the government's lying to cover it up.

One thing struck me, though. If you look at the picture, you see some girl that's been laid off and living with her mother for support. She's in the grocery store. In her arms are several packages of frozen, processed food, and in her purse is a pack of Newport cigarettes. That kind of stuff is why I think eventually we might see zombie hordes, because people don't *truly* understand how to cut back. She's in the DC area - I bet cigarettes are about $6 a pack up there. If you don't have a job, there's no reason you can't go to the library for free, pick up a cookbook, and figure out how to make meals from scratch for a fraction of the cost of frozen, processed crap. Right there she's got about $10-12 worth of crap that could be saved otherwise. In the process, she'd be healthier, would know how to do something, and could probably involve the rugrats in helping her cook instead of plopping their ass down in front of video games.

While I totally agree with you - she probably just didn't think of it. You are taught in school how NOT to think for yourself. You are bombarded with advertising and messages that say, "you don't have to work in the kitchen anymore." Where is this person's mother?

I cannot believe the stuff I hear from friends/coworkers/family about bad advice and situations they end up in. I always get the same answer when I set them straight, "wow - they should be teaching this stuff in school." Partly. Alot of this stuff was passed down from g'parents to kids. Think about it. Parents are too busy making a living, cleaning the house and planning everything. It was not too long ago that g'parents used to live in the same house and had the time to pass on the stories and knowledge to the younger generation.

[deMolay]

Not a pretty picture. http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/40738 ... ecord-high

[copious.abundance]

Hmm, looks like this one could be peaking too. Or at least getting reasonably near.

This first one is number of layoff events.


source

Similar picture emerges as measured by initial claimants


source